Forum - View topic
MEGA ANSWERMAN!


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
championferret



Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 762
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:51 am Reply with quote
Shiroi Hane wrote:
championferret wrote:
I don't claim to be some amazing guro

Is amazing guro less sickening than the regular stuff?

-bursts seams-
Anime hyper Oh man, you got me. That's the funniest typo I've made in a long time. I guess I should go back and edit my post.
(although, the statement was still correct, I was claiming to be neither guru nor guro! Anime hyper)
EDIT=Oh, and to everyone worshipping the Happy Hippo? I see them alot in the supermarkets. I live in Australia. Personally I prefer the 'bueno' bar by the same company though.
And as for Pocky; the ultimate greatest Pocky is the 'Dessert' range, where the breadstick is covered in chocolate mouse and hazzlenuts and strawberry and many other things and looks more like a 'cake stick'. And yes, Appollo chocolates are what they eat in heaven.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Psycho 101
Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 14584
Location: The Bannered Mare
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:00 am Reply with quote
posterior_praiser wrote:
Zac wrote:
Fiction Alchemist wrote:
Pocky has animal fats in it. I'm a vegetarian and thus can never eat it. I'm probably not missing anything.


This would make you a vegan, not a vegetarian.

Splittin' hairs and bein' pedantic, perfect activity for a Friday night!


Humm I have to disagree with you there. I don't think vegetarians eat anything meat, and that includes animal fat (carcass fat not milk fat) Some vegetarians don't use some soaps and other products cause of the animal fat in them. Guess it depends how far you go with it.


Being Vegan is sub genre so to speak of vegetarianism. So you're both right lol. No but seriously, a strictly vegetarian person simply does not eat animal flesh, i.e. meat. That does include seafood btw. A vegan won't even eat products made by animals. So no eggs or milk either. They also are the ones with the animal free clothing and other products, like soap. And if you still want to argue then just go look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Fallout2man



Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 271
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:13 am Reply with quote
tempest wrote:
I would disagree with you that IP is closer to speech than physical property. I'd suggest that some types of IP are expression (ie: art & entertainment), while others are not at all (ie: almost anything patented).

I'd also like to point out that most countries aren't suffering the same problems with the government making the "contract" too one sided (I'm not American), yet most of these countries, which are much less pro-corporation than the USA, still believe that IP is indeed property. In otherwords, it seems that even the reasonable people believe in IP.


I believe in IP too, but you have to think closely about what it is. First of all there are four different bodies of law, trade secrets, copyright, patent, and trademark. Each covers a different area but if you put it all together it boils down to one thing, an idea. IP is in its essence an idea. Copyright is the expression of an idea, Patent is the application of an idea in practical terms, trademark is the association of an idea to a business, trade secrets are any number of ideas used by a business. In the end all they are, is an idea.

The reason it's considered close to property if anything, is because property-like rights are given. The rights though are limited both in scope and in time because as was recognized, by the USA's founding fathers at least, Ideas are not a natural monopoly and therefore by their very nature they resist control.

IP in other nations though is fast becoming like that of the USA thanks to trade agreements we make and other attempts by international organizations like the WIPO to "harmonize" copyright, by which they mean "universally make copyright as restrictive as possible."

Quote:
In the USA you may have this painful movement towards the concept of licensed property as opposed to owned property. That when you buy something, you are merely acquiring the right to consume it in a particular fashion. In most of the rest of the world, the right to chose how to consume what we own remains the right of the consumer, who owns what they have purchased. Of course, consuming does not mean reproducing.


Here's something interesting to think about though. In the realm of digital media, most everything you do is reproducing it. Copying one bit from one location to another is part of how computers work. By the very nature of technology it is impossible not to make copies in some fashion. To consume is to copy.

Now, IP rights prevent distribution of copied works legally. However this if anything should be the distinguishing point between IP and physical property. If I were to walk into best buy with my magical copying device, and copy a 65" flat screen LCD HDTV and walk out with it, Best buy could not stop me or arrest me. Of course they could refuse to let me back in the store in the future (as business has a right to control property.)

They cannot arrest me of course, because no party has a right to control my copying a physical object. They may only control the object which they have made or paid for and therefore have ownership of. IP works very differently again because Ideas are so very different from physical property. They resist control, they want to be spread and therefore a very careful and specific set of laws and protections was made just for that reason.

So if anything Ideas are more speech than anything.

Quote:
I'd also disagree that saying anything is expression. Parrots say plenty of things, as do TVs and radios. These creatures and devices are not expressing themselves when they repeat what was originally said. (No, Polly isn't expressing herself when she says she wants a cracker, she doesn't even know that she's going to get a cracker by saying that).


Parots and TVs/Radios are not sentient beings capable of cognitive intelligent thought though. People ingest ideas, they at times repeat them for a variety of reasons, and sometimes if an idea resounds with someone enough they just repeat it because they believe that nothing needs to be changed. Each thing a person has said is speech and an expression of something, even if it's only an expression of a person's aparent lack of intelligence or understanding, it still is something that I would consider constitutionally protected.

Quote:
As for a constitutional version of common law, the concept of copyright in the USA is enshrined in the constitution; not an amendment, rather the constitution itself.

I think, and please don't be offended by this, one of the most serious problems with the United States, is that it, and many of its citizens, focus on the literal meaning of 250 year old laws. The right to bear arms, freedom of expression, etc... The creators of those laws did the best they could at the time, but there was no way they could foresee the realities of today's world.


The bill or rights was tacked on to explicitly state certain freedoms because people were wary of government. Originally they thought the constitution would guarantee those freedoms just from the initial document but instead decided to add it on. The first ten ammendments are as much a part of the constitution as the rest of it, they're just making some extra and very exact clarifications on the rights of the people.

As to the second part, ironically enough I think you sort of got the point and missed it all at once. the point wasn't in 250 year old laws, the point was 250 year old restrictions on government power. The people of the time knew the nature of man and oppression, something that has yet to truly change despite circumstances. The constitution was formed as a basis for our government because they believed if power was not properly constrained then we'd just turn into another tyranical government before too long.

Limited government is always a good idea, the less power people have the less ability they have to use it to hurt or oppress others. The rights we gave were our way of trying to set limits as best we could to keep government out of our lives, because as the saying goes: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." There is no way to prevent tyranny but to limit power.

We wouldn't have as quick or decent an ability to handle certain other problems but the attitude at the time was, and I still agree with this, that people need to take care of themselves. Freedom is never pretty, and people were mostly supposed to take care of their own lives with government only there to enforce the mimimum necessary for establishing a society.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I believe consumers and citizens need to have their rights protected. I am very disturbed by the DMCA, and by the notion espoused by copyright maximalists that copyright owners should be the ones that dictate what rights consumers have when it comes to their IP.

New laws need to be created that protect a creator's rights, an investors rights, and a citizens rights. Concepts like "freedom of access to information" didn't exist in the 18th century, yet I feel that it is an exceptionally important topic today. How can freedom of information and author's rights be brought into accordance with each other?


To an extent, yes, we do need new laws. However to some degree the court system can help with that. Before the DMCA here, the courts were slowly but surely laying out the rules of the new online arena. Unfortunately legislators got involved and we got where we are now. Every time we make a law though we have to be very careful, we have to examine it with a lot of scrutiny because each time we make a law we take away some freedom. So we have to be sure that the overall benefit of doing that more than justifies it.

Quote:
In short, new laws need to be created to protect consumers, to allow them to properly and fully consume what they've rightfully purchased. While other laws (or perhaps sections of the same laws) need to be created or updated to continue to protect the rights of creators and "promote the progress of science and the arts."


On a whole I feel that actually very little needs to be changed on the other end. New technologies do bring about new challenges but we have to weigh the benefits of the old system versus the new system. Laws weren't put in place to prop up old business models. We have to have a smooth transition and honestly I think aside from defining some new terminology I don't think copyright holders need much more power. Changing things a little is okay, but you can't and shouldn't use legislation to halt the economy from changing due to technology.

Quote:
The DMCA might have been in the right direction, but rather than being a single step, it seems to have been ten steps too many.

In other words, patent and copyright law are in serious need of reform.


Couldn't agree more with you on that one.

Quote:
On an aside, I'm a big believer in copyright alternatives, which is why Dan and I are discussing how to move certain parts of ANN to the creative commons.

Sorry, this post was all over the place.

-t


Nah, it's fun to talk seriously to someone who actually understands the issues. Smile

Like I said before I'm personally a believer in copyright, we still need money to undertake certain major projects that wouldn't be possible otherwise. The day we can plug a chord into our skull and make the next Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Matrix trilogy directly from our thoughts, is the day we cease to need copyright....so it'll be a while. I must give props on the creative commons thing though.

Either way I'll probably remain the outspoken asshole on the issue until I feel like things are moving in a better direction. Hey, anything's possible!


Last edited by Fallout2man on Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number My Anime My Manga
Roy9076



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 286
Location: California
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:38 am Reply with quote
Only thing I would like to talk about is the fansubbing. I like to watch fansubbing on the base of translation. However, I do note out which fansubbing group does the best translation. What is the verdict? Licenser of the anime does a superb job on translating. There is a few that does a very well job on translating and explaining, but once in a while there is a clear mess up. Anyways, I hardly watch any fantranslated material because the law does state about that issue and I firmly believe it. Seriously, temee does not always mean "bastard" (even though it is better than "you...!") or kuso means shit. Those are the top mistranslation I keep on appearing. People in Japan handle broadcasting like America... during the day time... Rolling Eyes

I did reply on the anime or manga is better, and I want to be the douche on this one as well. My thoughts again: "Meh..." xD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
CCSYueh



Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 2707
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:04 am Reply with quote
Nermal wrote:

I guess I should be thankful that I live in SoCal. All of the above is quite common here at Marukai or Mitsuwa.


My teen was saying Marukai was like a 99 cent store, but when I drove past it looked more like groceries, but I haven't had a chance to check them out.

As for American law, our politicians are too busy wasting time worrying about kids falling off tricycles or falling into 5 gallon buckets to deal with anything seriously important. They'll deal with copyright law only after they can't put off making a real decision. One would think there would be enough interest in protecting copyright (Hollywood, for one, has cash).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Asako



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 751
Location: Hawaii
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:13 am Reply with quote
DuelLadyS wrote:
My BF likes those lil' mushroom-shaped things... I don't know what they're called, but they're made by Meiji. (We have concluded Meiji is our favorite Japanese snack company.) I also have a small collection going of Morinaga ramune candy and buy C.C. Lemon soda over Ramune whenever I can. Wink

Sorry, this post will be mostly about snacks!

Ahh my boyfriend also likes those, "yama no kinoko", and he also likes the "takenoko no sato".

I neither like nor dislike Pocky. I usually only buy some Pocky when it's a flavor I never tried before. The only ones I can say I like is the Men's Pocky, Honey Pocky, and the Mousse Pocky with powdered chocolate. The other flavors are alright.

Overrated? I'm really tired of hearing that word about anything. People have different tastes about everything and not everyone is identical. What may seem overrated to some might reversely be seen as underrated by the other. :/

I used to love Hello Panda! But, if I remember, as a kid I used to eat it because the cracker taste as so delicious! Later, it became chocolate filled. (I could be mixing it up with the koala... my memory is terrible) I don't like the chocolate filled pandas and only like the cracker butter taste. So I stopped eating it Sad But I recently found Tabekko Doubutsu which is basically animal butter biscuits. Each animal has the English name for it printed on the cracker. This is to assist the children in learning English, and they have the matching Japanese on the packaging itself. After a while I found it's also being produced by a company outside of Japan (same taste, but now the package is in English). Same English words on the crackers, but this time the package tries to teach English to Spanish speaking kids. Smile Quite interesting!

Though, instead of PEACOCK it says PEAFOWL... is that how we're supposed to identify that bird as? O.o
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address My Anime My Manga
Bianchi



Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 8
Location: the home of the steelers
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:07 am Reply with quote
I've never heard/read anyone say "meh" before, but I find it really annoying now.

I'd ask my POD teacher about the first amendment thing (just to do it) but he'd probably hit me upside the head for asking something like that.

Pocky is strangely quite abundant around here. I got it at Walmart one day when I recognized it from the School Rumble manga. They had strawberry and chocolate for only 93 cents, so i bought a bunch Smile . I got this one kid (the type of guy who thinks all anime is pokemon or porn) hooked on it. So it must have some sort of appeal beyond otaku...

I really want to try all these treats I've been reading about on this thread...must go find them...

As soon as I read the Answerfans section, I knew what I would answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
posterior_praiser



Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 296
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:37 am Reply with quote
psycho 101 wrote:
posterior_praiser wrote:
Zac wrote:
Fiction Alchemist wrote:
Pocky has animal fats in it. I'm a vegetarian and thus can never eat it. I'm probably not missing anything.


This would make you a vegan, not a vegetarian.

Splittin' hairs and bein' pedantic, perfect activity for a Friday night!


Humm I have to disagree with you there. I don't think vegetarians eat anything meat, and that includes animal fat (carcass fat not milk fat) Some vegetarians don't use some soaps and other products cause of the animal fat in them. Guess it depends how far you go with it.


Being Vegan is sub genre so to speak of vegetarianism. So you're both right lol. No but seriously, a strictly vegetarian person simply does not eat animal flesh, i.e. meat. That does include seafood btw. A vegan won't even eat products made by animals. So no eggs or milk either. They also are the ones with the animal free clothing and other products, like soap. And if you still want to argue then just go look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism


LOL no argument. I just know that my friends who are vegeterian in that they eat milk and cheese, ect, don't eat animal fat. So I dunno Anime hyper! There are a whole bunch of ways to go about it I suppose Anime hyper!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psycho 101
Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 14584
Location: The Bannered Mare
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:28 am Reply with quote
The basic rule is veggies don't eat meat. All the other groups which are more nitpicky are just different forms of veggies and expand on the bas eidea of not eating meat. I think they're all wacko myself since we're designed as humans to be omnivores, not herbivores. But whatever floats your boat. It just means more steak for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Moomintroll



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 1600
Location: Nottingham (UK)
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:27 am Reply with quote
1:

psycho 101 wrote:
The basic rule is veggies don't eat meat.


Well, obviously. But, having been a vegetarian for over 30 years I can tell those still getting confused about this that "meat" in this context includes animal fats. This isn't rocket science people.

Quote:
I think they're all wacko myself


Thanks. Confused

Quote:
since we're designed as humans to be omnivores, not herbivores.


"Designed"? Rolling Eyes

Humans are omnivorous but evolved to primarily eat plant foods with meat as an addition to the diet. That's why we're not particularly good at digesting red meat (relative to animals for whom it's a more important part of their natural diet).
For the vast bulk of human history (at least in the Western world), most people, outside of the gout-ridden nobility, have eaten meat very rarely - it's only with industrialisation in the 19th Century that meat started to become affordable to the masses in densely settled areas and only in the 20th Century that it became cheap enough to be a part of most people's everyday diet.

Of course, since there's no dietary requirement in meat that can't be provided for by a vegetarian diet, our omnivorous status is a moot point unless you're living off your own wits in the wilderness - it's a personal ethical (or in some cases religious) choice to take or not take as you wish.

We're certainly not naturally equipped to eat anything like as much meat as the average American consumes.

2:

Fallout2man wrote:
Parots and TVs/Radios are not sentient beings capable of cognitive intelligent thought though.


Whilst that obviously applies to TVs and radios, I fail to see how it applies to parrots. Parrots are sentient (obviously - look up the word) and are quite capable of cognitive thought (as demonstrated by their ability to learn and to solve problems). And a creature capable of cognitive thought has intelligence by definition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Cowboy Cadenza



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 243
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:48 am Reply with quote
Roy9076 wrote:
Seriously, temee does not always mean "bastard" (even though it is better than "you...!") or kuso means shit. Those are the top mistranslation I keep on appearing. People in Japan handle broadcasting like America... during the day time... Rolling Eyes


Well, the literal translation of kuso IS shit. It's generally used to express frustration, so it can can be translated as anything you'd say when frustrated, which often includes..."shit!"

CCSYueh wrote:
As for American law, our politicians are too busy wasting time worrying about kids falling off tricycles or falling into 5 gallon buckets to deal with anything seriously important. They'll deal with copyright law only after they can't put off making a real decision. One would think there would be enough interest in protecting copyright (Hollywood, for one, has cash).


...what are you talking about? As inefficient as our government may be, I'm pretty sure they're worrying about more important things than that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address My Anime
jsevakis
ANN Director of New Media


Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 1670
Location: Los Angeles, CA
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:06 pm Reply with quote
psycho 101 wrote:
I think they're all wacko myself since we're designed as humans to be omnivores, not herbivores. But whatever floats your boat. It just means more steak for me.


Dude, be nice. The insulting name wasn't necessary.

I do enjoy a good steak, of course, but most of my vegetarian/vegan friends have pretty good reasons for being so. I mean, meat tastes SO GOOD, I suppose you'd have to have a good reason to give it up. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
ninjamitsuki



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 392
Location: Anywhere (Thanks, technology)
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:39 pm Reply with quote
Asako wrote:


instead of PEACOCK it says PEAFOWL... is that how we're supposed to identify that bird as? O.o


Yeah... Peacocks are the male ones, and peahens are the female ones, peacocks is the name of the animal, but since most people associate peafowl with the big feathers the males have, we call them peacock...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8156
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:49 pm Reply with quote
Moomintroll wrote:
1:
Humans are omnivorous but evolved to primarily eat plant foods with meat as an addition to the diet. That's why we're not particularly good at digesting red meat (relative to animals for whom it's a more important part of their natural diet).
For the vast bulk of human history (at least in the Western world), most people, outside of the gout-ridden nobility, have eaten meat very rarely - it's only with industrialisation in the 19th Century that meat started to become affordable to the masses in densely settled areas and only in the 20th Century that it became cheap enough to be a part of most people's everyday diet.
Your "vast bulk" seems to be limited to a few hundred years ago when most animals were considered the porperty of the lord of the manor and to hunt even a rabbit was considered pouching, a hanging offence, or "tranported" to the "colonies", when it has been archeologically proven that hominids have hunted animals and eaten their flesh long before that. It is believed that the concept of cooked meat came from the scavenging of dead animals killed by fire and that Homo Erectus was cooking meat way before Homo Sapian. Indeed have you ever seen a band of wild chimps hunt down and eat another species of monkey? It's quite an intreging window into our own past. We all don't have K9 teeth for nout. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dewlwieldthedarpachief



Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 751
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:06 pm Reply with quote
I suppose I should be ecstatic that someone besides me appreciates the value of vegetables; most people don't get enough and then wonder why they have heart disease, diabetes, or are just plain FAT. Ugh...image-opinionated fat people...

But that's another argument altogether. I just don't understand how vegetarianism is so impressive. What are you people all upset about? You think your personal choice to avoid meat and animal byproducts redeems you from lending to the suffering of animals?

WRONG!

Suffering is a part of life. I assure you, mother grizzly bear and her cubs will think nothing of your unrelenting screams as they eat you al fresco. You probably consume animals in some shape or form anyway: even plants will consume the nutrients from soil which is essentially biomass, which includes muffins the shrew, thumper, bambi, and all your favorite woodland creatures. Unless you just don't like meat, this thinking seems to me completely absurd. I'm not saying humanity has a license to cause undue misery unto the animal kingdom, I'm just saying that eating other things is natural and you shouldn't feel morally compromised for that. Its all part of the circle of life, and you are part of that circle, you don't have a sacred mandate just because you can sustain grammar and arithmetic.

If you don't want to be a good human being, then don't waste. Waste is by far a more horrible crime than SURVIVING.


Last edited by dewlwieldthedarpachief on Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group